CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 23 septembre 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF8DCB537 { width:16.53pt; display:inline-block } .s25347E17 { width:182.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE Application no. 22654/03 by Arkadiusz PRYGOŻY and Leonarda UNUCZEK against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23   September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Giovanni Bonello,   Ljiljana Mijović,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ján Šikuta,   Päivi Hirvelä, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 June 2003, Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure and to adjourn its consideration of applications deriving from the same systemic problem identified in the case of Broniowski v. Poland (no. 31443/96), Having regard to the decisions to strike the applications Wolkenberg and Others v. Poland (no. 50003/99) and Witkowska-Toboła v. Poland (no.   11208/02) out of the Court's list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Arkadiusz Prygoży (“the first applicant”) and Ms   Leonarda Unuczek (“the second applicant”), are Polish nationals. Their dates of birth are unknown. The second applicant lives in Biała Podlaska. A.     Historical background to Bug River cases before the Court (See E.G. v. Poland , no.   50425/99, §§   2-5). B.     Particular circumstances of case no. 22654/03 The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 17 January 1991 the Hrubieszów District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) gave a decision declaring that the applicants had acquired their late parents' estate and that they were entitled to receive one half each. On 28 February 2001 the first applicant obtained a certificate issued by the authorities of the Republic of Belarus confirming that before the Second World War his parents had owned a real property there. On an unspecified date in 2001 the applicants lodged a claim for compensation for the Bug River property against the State Treasury. On 14   December 2001 the Lublin Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) dismissed the applicants' request to be exempted from court fees due to the lack of a legal basis for the claim. In view of the amount of the court fees due, they decided not to pursue the claim. According to the applicants' own estimations submitted to the Court on 12 June 2003, the value of the original property amounted to 300,000.00   Polish zlotys (PLN). The applicants' subsequent attempts to acquire State property were unsuccessful. The only possibility of enforcing the claim was to participate in competitive bids for the sale of State property. However, the State authorities throughout Poland officially acknowledged the acute shortage of State-owned land designated for the realisation of the Bug River claims. This fact and the fact that at the material time it was the authorities' common practice to desist from organising auctions for Bug River claimants or to openly deny them the opportunity to enforce their entitlement through the statutory bidding procedure was established by the Court in the Broniowski judgment (see Broniowski , cited above, §§ 48-61, 69-87 and 168-176). There is no information showing whether the applicants have initiated proceedings under the Law on the realisation of the right to compensation for property left beyond the present borders of the Polish State ( Ustawa o   realizacji prawa do rekompensaty z tytułu pozostawienia nieruchomości poza obecnymi granicami państwa polskiego ) (“the July 2005 Act”) in order to obtain compensation for the Bug River property. C.     Relevant domestic law and practice in respect of Bug River claims (See E.G. v. Poland , no.   50425/99, §§   16-17). COMPLAINT (See E.G. v. Poland , no.   50425/99, §   18). THE LAW (See E.G. v. Poland , no.   50425/99, §§   19-29). For these reasons, the Court unanimously 1.     Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases; 2.     Decides to close the pilot-judgment procedure applied in respect of the Bug River applications in the case of Broniowski v. Poland (no.   31443/96).   Lawrence Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President